The proposal is for a short-barreled two shot single-use firearm in a pistol calibre, than is non-reloadable.

The weapon resembles a small bore sawn-off shotgun made entirely of metal, with a pistol grip. It has basic sights and two short smoothbore barrels; it also has a shoulder stock.

It does
not use metallic cartridges. The projectiles, propellant and percussion cap are installed at the time of manufacture; the firing pin, spring, sear and trigger are so integrated into the "stock" that sawing off the stock renders the weapon unusable. The casing is welded to prevent reloading; after use it must be discarded or recycled.

Concealment of the weapon under garments is therefore extremely difficult, and its accurate range is short; no more than five metres. It is also limited to the preloaded two shots.

No rational criminal would choose such a device for a robbery, but if confronted with one in (for example) a burglary would have considerable pause for thought, even if the individual wielding the weapon was small, female and elderly (representing a very vulnerable group in society, deserving of greater protection).

Ownership criteria would be considerably less stringent than for conventional firearms, and purchase price would include a training course which must be successfully completed before the weapon was delivered. Failure to pass the course results in a full refund.

The weapon requires no routine maintainance and has several safety devices including a grip safety.

Why not? Given the choice of one of these and a knife, why not choose the gun?
And if the knife is preferable, why wouldn't the homeowner choose the knife
instead? I can't see any argument that this makes sense for the average user,
but not for a criminal. Frankly, a cheap and disposable (i.e. difficult to trace)
seems like an ideal hold-up weapon.

//Ownership criteria would be considerably less stringent than for conventional
firearms//

From your description, it sounds like acquiring one of these would be even more
difficult than getting a shotgun, even in the UK. And a shotgun would be far
more useful to the average homeowner, anyway.

I'm just not convinced that your premise is soundthat people are really looking
for a low cost firearm that's less regulated because it's not as useful to
criminals. In the US, black powder firearms are largely unregulated, and a cheap
black powder pistol could be purchased via mail order and used for pretty much
this exact purpose without the government either knowing or caring. The
incidence of black powder pistols being used for home defense, however, is near
zero.

//Given the choice of one of these and a knife, why not choose the
gun? //

Ease of concealment when approaching the target location.

Ease of detection by metal detectors.

// why wouldn't the homeowner choose the knife instead? //

A knife is a close-quarters weapon requiring skill and practice to
inflict a disabling wound. Approaching to close quarters with a
physically superior opponent invites the risk of being disarmed. A
firearm also makes a useful amount of noise, guaranteed to attract the
attention of law-enforcement.

// a shotgun would be far more useful to the average homeowner //

Not so. Shotguns are relatively heavy, and have substantial recoil,
making them difficult to handle. They generally have only a simple
safety catch. The long barrel makes them unwieldy for the purposes of
FISH. They are attractive to thieves and require secure storage which
takes time to access. They are capable of being reloaded relatively
rapidly.

// In the US, black powder firearms are largely unregulated, and a
cheap black powder pistol could be purchased via mail order and
used for pretty much this exact purpose without the government either
knowing or caring. //

Due to its hygroscopic characteristics, black powder is a very poor
choice as a propellant for standby applications.

A pistol is ipso facto a concealable weapon; the proposed device is
not readily concealable.

I keep a hatchet and a powerful torch ready for burglars. I would immediately hand them over on demand! "Oi hand over that hatchet and torch." Ok - your need is obviously greater than mine, but Jesus and Mary will not be happy. (names of my two pet hyenas)

Precisely - the proposed device allows an individual who lacks, and
does not wish to acquire, a skill with weapons, to present a credible
and effective (but limited) threat.

//a hatchet and a powerful torch ready for burglars. //

Not good. A battery-powered reciprocating saw* is much better for
dismembering the corpse, and it's safer to do it using night vision
goggles so it's less likely that anyone will see.

* Be mindful that you need to use different blades when cutting muscle
or bone; best is to freeze the body first, then you can use a fine tooth
saw for everything without it clogging, and there's almost no blood.
But the pelvis is hard work - has to be done in small sections.

//Shotguns are relatively heavy, and have substantial
recoil, making them difficult to handle.//

A lightweight pistol such as you describe is going to
have considerably more recoil than, say, a .410
shotgun. In terms of legal requirements, your
proposed weapon would have to meet the same
overall length requirements as a shotgun to fall into
the same category for licensing purposes. So at best,
it's going to be no less difficult to handle than a
lightweight shotgun.

//They are attractive to thieves and require secure
storage which takes time
to access.//

I can think of no reason why you'd be able to store
such a weapon any less securely than a shotgun,
regardless of what type of safeties are provided. If a
child gets access to an unsecured gun and injures
himself with it, you're liable no matter what. And a
disposable gun with a grip safety can be stolen just as
easily as a reusable gun with a safety catch. Any
notion that you'd be able to keep this gun anywhere
but in a locked safe is just promoting irresponsible
gun ownership.

//They are capable of being reloaded relatively
rapidly.//

Why is that a good thing? I can't see your government
being more permissive regarding ownership on that
basis alone than they already are regarding long
guns, so there doesn't seem to be any benefit to that.

So what's the primary advantage here?

Oh, and as for this: //The long barrel makes them
unwieldy for the purposes of FISH.//

You should really reconsider your technique. Have
you tried simply using a rod and reel?

//freeze the body first, then you can use a fine
tooth saw for everything without it clogging//

That's not actually the case. Frozen soft tissue will
turn to mush under the friction of the saw. The
main advantage of freezing tissue first is that it
doesn't move with the saw. It's difficult to saw
unfrozen flesh with an electric saw that has a small
travel.

A fine-toothed saw, used with moderate
pressure, will cut deep-frozen tissue quite
efficiently - even if the saw stroke is
relatively short. Circumferential cuts, and
frequent pauses to allow the blade to cool, as
the best method.

This has really become a pandemic. Just last week I
saw a whole gang of townhouses beat a rustic log
cabin nearly to splinters. I guess it wasn't from around
here and had just wandered into a bad neighborhood.

//I do not expect to have defend myself - I expect the
police to do that for me, which is one of the reasons I pay
taxes.//

Ooooh, bad form. Since you've walked right into [21Q]'s
trap, let me go ahead and pre-empt him by responding with
Actually, the
police have no obligation to protect you, they're only sworn
to uphold the law, which is true (in fact, in the US there's
a Supreme Court decision that explicitly states that the
police are not required to protect any individual citizen).
Also, When seconds count, the police are only minutes
away. Again, this is true, and a very good argument for
being able to defend yourself without depending on the
police.

My big problem with this idea is that the gun only
holds 2 rounds. In a close quarters situation, even
people who are trained and know how to use a gun
often fire off 10-15 rounds without hitting anything.

As an American, my idea of the ideal home defense
weapon is an H&K USP 45 with a holographic sight
and blinding LED light on the bottom of it, with at
least 2 extra magazines on a quick access bandolier.

// The only scenario in which they could actually prevent
you from being victimized would be that portrayed in the
film 'Minority Report'. //

Or the scenario in which a police officer happens upon a
crime as it is comitted, or the one in which said officer's
presence prevents the crime altogether, or the one in
which a police negotiator brings a hostage situation to a
peaceful conclusion, or the other one in which a police
sharpshooter does it the cheap way, or the one in which
the combined efforts of law enforcement agencies result in
a reduction of the overall crime rate...

But only in those six scenarios could a law enforcement
agency prevent a person from becoming a victim of crime.
No more. Just yours with Tom Cruise and the five realistic
ones.

They are the ultimate distillation of the machine, artifacts
of endless variety and design but all devoted to
accomplishing the most simple and pure of mechanical
actions. They are a union of physics and art.

What you have to really watch out for are the ones
who mistakenly equate guns with violins. I went to a
concert once where it wasn't until halfway through the
third movement before I realized they weren't playing
the 1812 Overture.

Nothing fabled about it, they were real. Many thousands
were air-dropped into Nazi-occupied Europe. Several
hundred German occupiers are thought to have been killed
by resistance fighters wielding them. There are also stories
about a few hundred of them misfiring, hilarity ensuant.

I beleive the greatest trick pulled on humanity in modern times is convincing ourselves that we should be responsible for neither our actions, or our own personal safety.

In my country you will be told, and encouraged, to flee or barricade yourself in some part of your home if someone breaks in. You will commonly get charged and severely punished for harming people who are trying to hurt you. As a legally licenced firearm owner, I would never consider using my firearms to defend myself even in my own home, because of the absolute certainty that I'd be pursecuted in both media and courtroom for doing so - self protection is neither a legal reason for owning a firearm, nor a legal use for one.

I like this idea. I'd prefer nerve gas dispensors, but a gimped "home use only" firearm is an okay second best.

//You will commonly get charged and severely
punished for harming people who are trying to
hurt you. As a legally licenced firearm owner, I
would never consider using my firearms to defend
myself even in my own home, because of the
absolute certainty that I'd be pursecuted in both
media and courtroom for doing so - self protection
is neither a legal reason for owning a firearm, nor
a legal use for one.//

In my neck 'o' the woods it's not just a rant, it's bollocks. If
somebody is threatening me or my family in my home I
won't hesitate to fenestrate them with the shotgun I keep
for that express purpose, and the authorities will see it my
way (I can cite two recent examples in my county and an
adjacent county).

[Max] - yep I think that ticked all the boxes koalafying it as a rant. Albeit one relevant to the discussion (wherein people were chiming in that you don't need to defend yourself, the police will do that for you - which they generally won't).

I just don't like things that disempower people to help themselves, but rather encourage us to be insipid, useless weaklings totally dependent on outside assistance for our every need.

The whole gun/home defense debate could be simplified if
everyone
were limited to owning and operating muzzle-loading
black-powder based weapons such as duelling pistols,
blunderbusses, Enfield 1853 rifles and the like. Those
who wish to fire more than one salvo between lengthy
reloading operations will need to carry a "brace" of
pistols, much like a pirate. Everyone wins.

You're right, maybe we should also stipulate that you're
only allowed whatever muzzle-loading weaponry you can
comfortably carry about your person. The use of cannon,
field-guns, howitzers and other artillery pieces might
fall outside of that stipulation. Large barrels of
gunpowder *are* allowed, as long as they have long
trailing fuses that can be comedically stamped/blown
upon should they get lit accidentally.

2. well known for being of great quality or rarity; famous:
a fabled art collection

By the secondary definition you are using the word
correctly--technically--though I would consider the
Liberator pistol neither well-known nor of great quality (I
would even go so far to say that what fame it has is due to
its novelty and poor quality). Surviving examples are rare,
but not exceedlingly so, but not exceedingly so. There are
many in museums and the hands of private collectors, and
a few are available for sale on the web if you dig deep
enough.

For the sake of harmony, I will concede that--technically--
you used the word correctly, and I will reduce my argument
to a well-educated and informed opinion that you could
have used a much more accurate word.

My home defense is impregnible, I have a complex and
cripplingly expensive line of concrete fortifications that stretch
all the way across my garden. The neighbors don't have a similar
system, but their gardens are a little hilly and full of trees. So I
don't expect any problems there.

//For the sake of harmony, I will concede that--technically-- you used the word
correctly, and I will reduce my argument to a well-educated and informed opinion
that you could have used a much more accurate word.//

In the most basic sense, it simply means famous (as your provided definition
indeed indicates). I am, of course, aware of the positive connotations of the
word, and regarding that I would point you towards the following:

irony: the use of words to express something other than and especially the
opposite of the literal meaning

It's fabled for being a low-quality piece of crap, that never saw anything close
to the intended or expected usage. My comparison of this idea to the FP-45
Liberator was not an attempt to place either in a flattering light, but rather to
point out that a facially similar idea had been tried before, with (extremely)
limited success.